The best thing about it was when BBC News interviewed some guy that actually said "I saw Prince Charles, I think he was shopping." I could not stop laughing.
As if the future King of England would mooch around Oxford Street.
I wouldn't call myself a Royalist at all, but I think the whole thing was massively disrespectful.
Who here enjoyed seeing charles and camilla squirm? Watch
View Poll Results: Did you enjoy seeing Camilla and Charles squirmLoved it! power to the people, shame it was only the car that got smashed2055.56%Yes, now get a new paint job scum!513.89%Was amusing for a moment, then i became all emotional and reapplied my white make up and eyeshadow12.78%No, i cried, and once i stopped i blew my nose into 100 pound notes1027.78%Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll
- 14-12-2010 20:26
(Original post by gladders)
- 14-12-2010 20:38
Because monarchy isn't anything to do with backwardsness or lack of civilisation. Has it not occurred to you that most of the countries considered most democratic and with the high quality of life and narrowest wealth gap are monarchies?
Firstly, Charles is the Head of State to be. It's the same as the US Vice president.
Secondly, we've had as much choice about having a monarchy as people in the US have had a choice about being governed by the US Constitution. Both were ratified by people centuries ago and altered and adjusted here and there every now and then; but nobody in living memory has had a vote on any of them.
(Original post by Struggle)
- 14-12-2010 21:14
First of all, you will not find me defending the United States. Any system based on class-division cannot have a genuine democracy.
"In a world marked by profound class divisions and social inequality, to talk about 'democracy'— without talking about the class nature of that democracy and which class it serves—is meaningless, and worse. So long as society is divided into classes, there can be no 'democracy for all': one class or another will rule, and it will uphold and promote that kind of democracy which serves its interests and goals." - Bob AvakianDepending on ones definition of 'backward';
The monarchy has everything to do with backwardness. The very reason it was restored was because of nationalism and the notion of following tradition; both using no context of progression. - If one does not reach out to progress, one can only go backward."Has it not occurred to you that most of the countries considered most democratic and with the high quality of life and narrowest wealth gap are monarchies?"
Please source this, as I think you are simply speculating.
11 monarchies in the top 20. No monarchies in bottom 20.
11 monarchies in top 20. Two monarchies at bottom 20.Standard of life is usually measured by life-expectancy rate, and unfortunately, your claims are not backed up.
And before you rightfully dispute Wikipedia, all the statistics have been backed up in the bibliography.
No monarchies in bottom 20.Last edited by gladders; 14-12-2010 at 21:17.
(Original post by Jacktri)
- 14-12-2010 21:19
when the current monachy family were chosen to be the kings and queens of Britain only the extremely rich were allowed to vote and they were only made the monachy because the previous monachy had left no heirs and parliment wanted to keep the monachy protestant
It makes no difference anyway - the fact is, in both countries, neither generation has chosen their constitution. That said, there's pretty much no doubt the Queen would win an election effortlessly if we had one tomorrow.
- 15-12-2010 17:45
I can't see anything wrong with your poll...